- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-617/13: Action brought on 20 November 2013 — AIC v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchanger inserts)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TN0617
62013TN0617
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
25.1.2014
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 24/35
(Case T-617/13)
2014/C 24/66
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: AIC S.A. (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: J. Radłowski, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ACV Manufacturing (Seneffe, Belgium)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 September 2013 given in Case R 688/2012-3;
—Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those incurred before the Board of Appeal.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The design for a product described as ‘heat exchanger inserts’ — Registered Community Design No 1 137 152-0002
Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant
Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: It was alleged that the design did not fulfil the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2), in conjunction with Articles 5 and 6 and in particular Article 8(1) and (2) CDR
Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested RCD invalid
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 4(2) CDR.